Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal refuse bailout funds

I noticed some posts at the Maritime Sentry about Governor Mark Sanford. If Bobby Jindal can’t save us in 2012, then Mark Sanford is my second choice. Everybody knows that Jindal is turning down bailout funds. Here is Bobby Jindal on the Hugh Hewitt show explaining why he is refusing the bailout funds, on how he intends to deal with the economic downturn in his state budget. Dynamite!

But Maritime Sentry has the story on Mark Sanford’s refusal to take bailout funds. Here, they link to this Forbes article, entitled “Why Mark Sanford Matters: Small-government conservatives have found their champion.”

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Sanford’s opposition to President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and in particular his insistence on using up to a fourth of his state’s stimulus funds to pay down debt or refusing it outright, has fast made him a folk hero to conservatives.

I am a little concerned by his opposition to the Iraq war, because I feel that it was a successful action against terrorism with strategic gains that far outweighed the costs. I approve of his small government stand, though. The National Taxpayer’s Union also approves:

The 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has applauded South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for their decisions this week to refuse part of the federal stimulus package earmarked for their respective states. Sanford will accept $700 million only if the President allows him to use it to pay down debts rather than create new spending obligations. Perry has refused outright $555 million for expansion of state unemployment benefits.

Maritime Sentry also links to this 5-minute video, in which Sanford explains why he is turning down the bailout money. He doesn’t want Obama to be able to impose taxes on his state later, if he takes the bailout money today.

The Democrats doesn’t like federalism much. The DNC is even running ads in South Carolina against Sanford for refusing to take the money, and the attached strings. I found a statement about these DNC ads over at his blog. Jindal is also taking heat from unions and other economically-illiterate left-wing groups in his state.

UPDATE 2: Here is the first part of an interview with Mark Sanford conducted by the Acton Institute, which specializes in free market capitalism and its relationship to religious liberty. (H/T Binky @ Free Canuckistan!)

7 thoughts on “Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal refuse bailout funds”

“…a little concerned by his opposition to the Iraq war, because I feel that it was a successful action against terrorism with strategic gains that far outweighed the costs…”

I say that if you believe you own yourself, then you have to be against taxation, no? And the Iraq war used tax dollars to pay for it.

Also, how do you know the actions over there were successful against terrorism? In my opinion, it made us more susceptible to future terrorist acts.

Also, innocent people were killed in the war and that not acceptable to me. Partly because, well, I’m against murder, but also partly because I feel like I could be a target for retribution because I’m an American.

Other than that, I think war is great. I love it, but it needs to be done with both sides explicit consent, with their own money, and can’t interfere in any way with my life.

Stay with me. Were you against innocent people being killed during World War 2? Innocent people were not targeted by the US military, but many were killed due to collateral damage. Is collateral damage the same as, say terrorism? What’s the difference? (I see a difference – but do you?) I do not think that civilian casualties during a war are the same as intentionally taking your husband in order to inherit his money, say. Can you see a difference?

Also, please define murder. Is it murder when US troops drop a bomb on enemy forces and a civilian who is standing by is killed?

Remember that according to the Constitution, the government has an obligation to protect the people from aggressors, not to nationalize health care or provide redistributions of wealth to welfare recipients. War is Constitutional.

In light of your post to me, Winter Knight, I withdraw the use of the word “murder”. It’s debatable that the collateral damage we speak of actually falls under that definition. It might, but it’s beside my point.

There’s gang problems in LA. What’s the difference in just dropping an atomic bomb on that City of Angels? Would you have a problem with that? If that succeeds like the Iraq war, perhaps we should bomb the Big Apple too?

Thanks for your gracious comment. I would not take the course of action you suggest in order to stop gang violence in Los Angeles. Moreover, I do not think that this is what our forces do as they defend our liberties abroad. Quite the opposite, in fact. And let me just add that I have nothing but gratitude for their sacrifices, because, apart from the will of God, their efforts to defend the United States is what provides me with security, liberty and prosperity. I am deeply grateful.

Thanks BG. Please remember to stop by. I really appreciate people who disagree with me because I learn things.

About Dr. Murphy. Everybody who doesn’t understand capitalism and/or economics should go out right now and buy Robert P. Murphy’s book. It is 200 pages of effective explanations for the most common misunderstandings that occur when discussing economics. And what’s more, Robert is a Christian. I highly recommend his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism”.